RSS Feed
Washington - Sen. Graham: Health Care Reform Bill "D.O.A." In The Senate |
|
| |
Text Size
|
Graham argued that the House bill was "written for liberals, by liberals.
"Just look at how it passed; it passed 220 to 215. It passed by two votes. You had [39] Democrats vote against the bill," Graham told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer Sunday.
He also admitted that if it were to come down to it, he would join his independent colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in filibustering a bill including the so-called public option should it come to the Senate floor.
"The House bill is a non-starter in the Senate," he added. "I just think the construct out of the House and what exists in the Senate is not going to pass, and I hope and pray it doesn't because it would be a disaster for the economy and health care," Graham concluded.
Graham believed a public option would "destroy" private health care, saying that insurance companies could not compete against the lower premiums of a government-backed plan. "It will be a death blow to private choice," he said.
Schieffer asked Senator Jack Reed, D-R.I., whether he believed that Senate Democrats had the votes to pass the House bill considering it includes the so-called public option.
"I believe we are going to pass health care reform," Reed responded. "I believe we must do this because it's essential to not just the quality of life here but our economic success in the future.
"Senator Reid, Harry Reid has introduced the public option and there is strong support there. but we are far from the end of the debate in the Senate. It will take time. It will be careful, thorough and deliberate.
"I hope that a public option is in the final bill," he added.
Reed admitted that there is an "active debate" taking place among senators and various provisions to a public insurance plan, such as the trigger option or allowing states to opt-out.
"Overwhelmingly, sixty percent of the American public want a public option and I think we should be listening to them as much as listening to ourselves," Reed said.
More of today's headlines
“Israel - A bill stating that any licensed hospital with a majority of Jewish patients must serve kosher food passed its preliminary reading. Twenty-four Knesset...” Israel - New Bill Will Require Hospitals With Jewish Patients to Serve Kosher Food
Fort Laudardale, FL - Rabbi Credited For Talking Rothstein Out of Committing Suicide
Total66
Read Comments (66) — Post Yours »
1
Nov 08, 2009 at 12:52 PM Anonymous Says:
we have no idea what damage this is for the U S A
2
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:27 PM Anonymous Says:
Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!!
3
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:25 PM Anonymous Says:
220 to 215 =2 votes? and we're supposed to trust the speaker of these words to give us accurate info on what will happen in the Senate? sorry Sen. Graham, sounds like wishful thinking to me.
4
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:23 PM Anonymous Says:
If Graham wants to stand in the way, he will become political "roadkill" along with Lieberman and others who would seek to deny American' their right to affordable health care. We don't need his vote since Reeed will use the reconciliation process to push through the bill with 50 votes to get to a confernece with Pelosi. Once they are in a confernece, nothing will stop them.
5
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:17 PM Anonymous Says:
What this man been smoking 60 % want a public option idiet 90% don't want this thing In the first place
6
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:16 PM boyich svarah Says:
“ we have no idea what damage this is for the U S A ”
I that's son then we also have no idea of how beneficial this is may be for the U S A
7
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:46 PM COMMON SENSE Says:
What people have overlooked is a provision in the House bill that creates a commission to determine who should be treated and who should be allowed to die. This exists in Europe and many people are left to die because it has been determined by their governments that some people are not worth treating.
This is an assault on the fundamntal value of life itself.
8
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:10 PM Anonymous Says:
Sixty percent?!! Where did he get that number?
9
Nov 08, 2009 at 12:57 PM Elections Have Consequences Says:
Lets all hope he is correct & that the bill is non-revivable!
10
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:22 PM Anonymous Says:
“ 220 to 215 =2 votes? and we're supposed to trust the speaker of these words to give us accurate info on what will happen in the Senate? sorry Sen. Graham, sounds like wishful thinking to me. ”
it needed 218 to pass. thats where the math comes in
11
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:21 PM Anonymous Says:
They said it wouldn't pass the House as well. Conservatives love to yap, that's all they're good at.
12
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:20 PM Jefferson Says:
“ 220 to 215 =2 votes? and we're supposed to trust the speaker of these words to give us accurate info on what will happen in the Senate? sorry Sen. Graham, sounds like wishful thinking to me. ”
Its quite funny to see how utterly clueless you are. somehow a senator and respected (somewhat) news organization managed to slip an obvious mistake which "you the genius" have found"!
the fact is you must have 118 votes in the congress to pass any legislation (its called a "majority"). this passed with 120.
13
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:19 PM anonymous Says:
What this good senator does not say that he has excellent health insurance partly subsidized by the tax payer and and the deluge for the rest of the country
14
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:15 PM Jefferson Says:
“ Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!! ”
The problem is simple. A government option will effectively put all private insurance companies out of business.
the obvious reason for this being that while private companies can only exist if they make a profit - if not they would have to declare bankruptcy - government entities are almost always running in the red. thus the public option will be able to undercut the private options by a significant margin.
all workers receiving employer provided health insurence (about 80% of the country) will see their coverage be swiched over to the public option which will be much cheaper (as explained).
once all the insurance companies are out of business we will have a de facto socialized single payer health care system.
15
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:15 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!! ”
Its called socialism. It results in no motivation for the workforce, lack of innovation, stagnation, redundant useless managing by people who have no clue and crippling useless laws. Look at the UK.
50% of the GDP is now going to the govnt. For what?
Socialism is proven not to work.
16
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:13 PM Anonymous Says:
“ 220 to 215 =2 votes? and we're supposed to trust the speaker of these words to give us accurate info on what will happen in the Senate? sorry Sen. Graham, sounds like wishful thinking to me. ”
there are 435 member of the house of representatives divide that in half and your get 217.5 representatives which means you need 218 for a majority
220 minus 218 = 2
so it might be more accurate to say 3 votes or perhaps he's saying 2 votes more then the majority
meaning that even though it passed it just barely squeaked by with the necessary votes and with 39 democrats against it
17
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:11 PM FVNMS closes his eyes, counts to ten and Says:
“ Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!! ”
First of all, consider your own words: nobody you know is a shareholder in the insurance industry. And yet, almost everybody you know is against this narishkeit. Using that 'ole seichel so many of us wish folks like you would use, you can deduce clearly that universal health care is BAD. Not bad for insurance companies, but bad for me, you and anybody who still plans on procuring medical care. I really don't believe this is the first time you're reading about the subject. I won't get into rationing, deterioration of care-quality, long lines/waiting periods, drastic decreases in medical research, etc because if I have to (after this has been the hottest topic for many countless months) you won't get it. But the fact that so many sane people are vehemently opposed to it says a lot about it. Who's for it? The likes of Obama and his Whitehouse cronies (many of them questionable), Nancy Pelosi, Barney the menuval Frank, Harry Reid, the list goes on.
18
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:05 PM Anonymous Says:
“ 220 to 215 =2 votes? and we're supposed to trust the speaker of these words to give us accurate info on what will happen in the Senate? sorry Sen. Graham, sounds like wishful thinking to me. ”
It takes 218 to pass something.
19
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:00 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!! ”
Simply put we the taxpayer will be paying for this public option second I'd the goverment can't mange social security I can they manage health insurance
20
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:13 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!! ”
It depends on how it is structured. If done right, it could be no worse than Medicaid. In fact, though, what it is in this bill is a way of making sure the only insurance provider is the government by mandating that private insurance cover a laundry list of stuff, and then subsidizing with tax payer dollars the competing public option which offers the same thing, pushing employers to dump their health insurance as it will be cheaper to pay the salary to cover the public option, and then once the public option is the only game in town, either by legislation or court order, abortion coverage will be mandated, and anyone over 85/90 will be told to just go an die already, we can't afford to pay for you.
Government provided food causes famine, Government provided health care will cause people to be untreated. Unless you work for the Federal Government which will never drop its separate, gold plated coverage even if it makes no economic sense.
So then there will be two tiers in America, those who are members of the party (i.e. Government workers) and those who aren't. Who happens to be elected at the head won't really matter.
21
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:52 PM Anonymous Says:
“ If Graham wants to stand in the way, he will become political "roadkill" along with Lieberman and others who would seek to deny American' their right to affordable health care. We don't need his vote since Reeed will use the reconciliation process to push through the bill with 50 votes to get to a confernece with Pelosi. Once they are in a confernece, nothing will stop them. ”
we will stop the bill so that we wont become a socialist country .hashem should bless them they should suceed to stop this bill go graham and liberman .we are with u.if this passes u might have insurance but u wont have a dr. look at canada .enough said .
22
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:49 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Its called socialism. It results in no motivation for the workforce, lack of innovation, stagnation, redundant useless managing by people who have no clue and crippling useless laws. Look at the UK.
50% of the GDP is now going to the govnt. For what?
Socialism is proven not to work. ”
If free health care will do all of things you are predicting it will do, how come free education -- which amounts to far greater spending -- hasn't done that?
Why is subsidized health care "socialism," and not free eduction? Is it my responsibility to pay for my neighbors child to be educated? Or s goes the conservative argument.
The reality is that there is no precedent that you can point to with which to bolster your claim. I, on the other hand, do have precedent. Every industrialized country in the world has some form of universal health care and they all seem to be to innovate just as well as the US. Norway and Singapore both have higher per capita incomes than the US, with completely "socialist" health care systems.
Israel has never had any problems with being on the cutting edge of innovation, and they have universal health care.
Until you can unequivocally prove that there is any correlation between subsidized health insurance and lack of innovation/stagnation, it would be best not to make such statements.
23
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:45 PM Liepa Says:
I'm sorry folks but I pay close to $1500 a month on (not great but decent) health insurance to me anything must be better than this. Eighteen thousand dollars annually is more than most peoples mortgages. So yes, I have no problem with Obamacare.
Whoever wont like the 'public option' will be able to buy, in addition to their mandatory health insurance a supplemental health insurance that will pick up where the governments policy leaves off. I think this will certainly be better than the current $1500 monthly.
24
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:29 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!! ”
The answer to your question is that people don't vote their circumstances, they vote their aspirations. The greatest achievement of the super rich is getting the average pauper to do their bidding for them. People are brainwashed into believing that they to will soon be a millionaire, and so they defend their fantasies, not their actual life. Its no coincidence that El Rushbo is constantly bragging about his private jets, massive homes, fleet of cars etc.. this is what appeals to the audience: the notion that the little guy will soon be a bigwig insurance executive bemoaning his heavily-taxed fate. Of course the irony is that many of frum jews defending insurance companies are themselves collecting Medicaid or Medicare, completely free quasi-socialist health care programs.
25
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:28 PM Jefferson Says:
“ If Graham wants to stand in the way, he will become political "roadkill" along with Lieberman and others who would seek to deny American' their right to affordable health care. We don't need his vote since Reeed will use the reconciliation process to push through the bill with 50 votes to get to a confernece with Pelosi. Once they are in a confernece, nothing will stop them. ”
Perhaps housing and food are also "rights". maybe the government should socialize all grocery shops and equally distribute the food to all households (who will live in public housing only - obviously).
sorry son. last time i checked the constitution it defines a "right" as a freedom from being infringed upon by the government. (i.e. the "right to religion, free speech, press etc.) these are known as "negative rights".
the idea of a "right" being something that the government owes you (what belongs to someone else i.e. a "positive right") is a fragment of karl-marx' and the Liberals' imagination, and a danger to liberty.
26
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:03 PM michal Says:
Remember the saying, "There's not such thing as a free lunch". We are going to pay this bill through higher taxes. Anyone who supports this bill is foolish and naive.
27
Nov 08, 2009 at 02:03 PM Anonymous Says:
“ If Graham wants to stand in the way, he will become political "roadkill" along with Lieberman and others who would seek to deny American' their right to affordable health care. We don't need his vote since Reeed will use the reconciliation process to push through the bill with 50 votes to get to a confernece with Pelosi. Once they are in a confernece, nothing will stop them. ”
Affordable healthcare? How is 15,000 for insurance at a time that the average American is making 21,000 affordable?
The real health issue that's driving cost is the high cost of malpractice insurance for Doctors. If congress wanted reform they would encourage Tort reform, but they don't have the guts to do so. This plan is not affordable, and cannot be sustained. Medicaid had drained many states of funds.
Also, the plan penalizes me for choosing not to have insurance. Something against the fundamentals of this country. This plan will do little to improve healthcare and will drive many companies out of business.
The insurance companies are making far less than the oil, banks, or car industries and we don't hear anyone screaming reform. This country is based on free markets and the gov't not allowing companies to make money is nothing more than communism.
28
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:59 PM Anonymous Says:
Can somone give more details what's wrong with this plan and why is it different then medicaid?
29
Nov 08, 2009 at 01:57 PM Anonymous Says:
“ 220 to 215 =2 votes? and we're supposed to trust the speaker of these words to give us accurate info on what will happen in the Senate? sorry Sen. Graham, sounds like wishful thinking to me. ”
Yes the bill required 218 votes to pass, and got 220, so it passed by 2 votes.
Don't criticize without all the facts. Not everyone in politics is an idiot.
30
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:22 PM Midwestern Guy Says:
“ If Graham wants to stand in the way, he will become political "roadkill" along with Lieberman and others who would seek to deny American' their right to affordable health care. We don't need his vote since Reeed will use the reconciliation process to push through the bill with 50 votes to get to a confernece with Pelosi. Once they are in a confernece, nothing will stop them. ”
I wonder where you come up with this "right" to affordable healthcare? Is it in the constitution somewhere? Not in my copy.
31
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:47 PM No Heroic Measures Says:
I hope it is D. O. A. and do not resuscitate!
32
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:46 PM Anonymous Says:
“ I wonder where you come up with this "right" to affordable healthcare? Is it in the constitution somewhere? Not in my copy. ”
Where in the Constitution is there any reference to your "right" to drive on subsidized roads, attend publicly funded schools, frequent your local library, have subsidized food, collect Social Security etc... ? Surely not in my copy of the Constitution.
Why don't the teabaggers rail against public eduction if they really believed rights are only that which are unalienable?
Nobody is making the argument that subsidized health care is a "right"; it is not.
However, we live in a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, and if the people, and by extension, their representatives vote for a program such as Medicare and it is deemed constitutional, than it becomes the law. Its that simple.
33
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:34 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!! ”
the problem is that your choice and right to healthcare to decisions about your health your father's will be
taken from you and be gaven to the dmv bureaucratics who will say oh cancer no treatment chas v shalom why because its a burden on the economy and what help to society is a old man anyway so don't waste the money so as its written in the bill and the way you solve this is by giving them old people pain "killers" till they die and then it will not be a burden allso same with a pacemaker why give it the old person is not productive anyways burden young people with all the recovery why the hell so much money allso there is a waiting list for years for every surgr and people die because a simple surgery takes so long.
34
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:33 PM anonymous Says:
“ The problem is simple. A government option will effectively put all private insurance companies out of business.
the obvious reason for this being that while private companies can only exist if they make a profit - if not they would have to declare bankruptcy - government entities are almost always running in the red. thus the public option will be able to undercut the private options by a significant margin.
all workers receiving employer provided health insurence (about 80% of the country) will see their coverage be swiched over to the public option which will be much cheaper (as explained).
once all the insurance companies are out of business we will have a de facto socialized single payer health care system. ”
you are wrong in New England , Mass., and Vermont there are private insurance companies which provide excellent coverage. Profit is a vague term. Yes you should make profit but what is exorbitant and what is profit. you check foreign private insurance none pay these outlandish salaries what American insurance companies pay. Private health insurance is an oxymoron because the company tries to limit coverage as much as possible and the insured needs good coverage.
35
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:31 PM Midwestern Guy Says:
“ Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!! ”
The short story is that most large companies will dump expensive private healthcare when they can get it for much less through the public option. Eventually, there will be no private healthcare because everyone will, for various reasons, be stuck with the public option. At that point, it will be no different from Canada or other countries that sink tons of money into a system that handles healthcare the same way that your local DMV handles your driver's license testing and renewals. That's one of the problems.
From there, things will only get worse as costs spiral way out of control (how many government projects ever get done without exceeding their original budget?). Then, there will be a critical need to contain costs. What's the only way to contain costs of everyone is entitled care? Simple. The government plan (the public option) starts to deny care. Maybe at first, they just get people to stop having expensive end-of-life care, but it will continue into other areas. With no competition, the government will be the sole arbiter of decisions that will affect us in a substantial way. And that's before we talk about several other issues that come up with socialized care.
36
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:52 PM anonymous Says:
“ The problem is simple. A government option will effectively put all private insurance companies out of business.
the obvious reason for this being that while private companies can only exist if they make a profit - if not they would have to declare bankruptcy - government entities are almost always running in the red. thus the public option will be able to undercut the private options by a significant margin.
all workers receiving employer provided health insurence (about 80% of the country) will see their coverage be swiched over to the public option which will be much cheaper (as explained).
once all the insurance companies are out of business we will have a de facto socialized single payer health care system. ”
Toyota, Honda and Nissan virtually decimated the American auto industry and they had to reinvent themselve. Insurance companies can do the same work more efficiently and forgo huge salaries. If you want a huge salary work on Wall Street for Goldman Sachs or another investment comp[any instead of health insurance which thrives on humand misery
37
Nov 08, 2009 at 03:55 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Perhaps housing and food are also "rights". maybe the government should socialize all grocery shops and equally distribute the food to all households (who will live in public housing only - obviously).
sorry son. last time i checked the constitution it defines a "right" as a freedom from being infringed upon by the government. (i.e. the "right to religion, free speech, press etc.) these are known as "negative rights".
the idea of a "right" being something that the government owes you (what belongs to someone else i.e. a "positive right") is a fragment of karl-marx' and the Liberals' imagination, and a danger to liberty. ”
I hate to break this to you, but all governments do subsidize grocery bills by way of food stamps, and housing by way of public housing for those who can't afford it.
This health care proposal is no different.
The word is figment, not fragment, and can you people go more than one paragraph without invoking socialism, marxism, communism, nazism etc. Expand your lexicons please. You are boring us all.
38
Nov 08, 2009 at 04:21 PM What Happened? Says:
When I got married 36 years ago, I was able to subsist on about $150 a week, which included my rent, and a car and my own private health insurance, which had more coverage and a choice of physicians in any state than any HMO under gov't. healthcare such as medicaid. What happened?
39
Nov 08, 2009 at 04:10 PM Jefferson Says:
here is a fun fact:
94% of all medical innovations are made in the united states - by "greedy evil corporations" trying to profit off other peoples misery. the industrialized nations with socialized healthcare freeload off of us.
if America joins them as a country with socialized medicine - who will make all of those life saving innovations? (hint: not the government)
40
Nov 08, 2009 at 04:27 PM LIBERALISM IS A DISEASE!!! Says:
“ I hate to break this to you, but all governments do subsidize grocery bills by way of food stamps, and housing by way of public housing for those who can't afford it.
This health care proposal is no different.
The word is figment, not fragment, and can you people go more than one paragraph without invoking socialism, marxism, communism, nazism etc. Expand your lexicons please. You are boring us all.
”
Your point is also boring us all. Your side makes the same pointless arguments all the time of well we already have foodstamps. medicare, etc etc etc. However there is NO WAY you can tell us those programs work & there is NO WAY those programs work for 325 MILLION PEOPLE.
41
Nov 08, 2009 at 05:25 PM Midwestern Guy Says:
“ Where in the Constitution is there any reference to your "right" to drive on subsidized roads, attend publicly funded schools, frequent your local library, have subsidized food, collect Social Security etc... ? Surely not in my copy of the Constitution.
Why don't the teabaggers rail against public eduction if they really believed rights are only that which are unalienable?
Nobody is making the argument that subsidized health care is a "right"; it is not.
However, we live in a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, and if the people, and by extension, their representatives vote for a program such as Medicare and it is deemed constitutional, than it becomes the law. Its that simple. ”
Nobody's making the argument that subsidized health care is a "right"? That's exactly what #4 said. Exactly. But don't let facts get in your way.
As to your questions about publicly subsidized services, is there anything similar to healthcare that people are protesting about? No. It's not like roads, where people have the freedom to travel on them or not. The Federal healthcare takeover will affect each and every American.
Public education? While most funds are local rather than Federal, people are taxed and expect a certain level of services. Wouldn't it make sense to be able to use our own money to choose our own schools? The libs deny us that choice, just as they will deny us care when, in order to reduce costs, healthcare will become subject to rationing, just as it is in many other countries. So much for the party of "choice."
You are correct that our representatives can make laws. But we are lucky enough to live in a country where laws can be undone, and where people who vote in favor of bad laws can be voted out. I'm already excited about 2010.
42
Nov 08, 2009 at 05:25 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Your point is also boring us all. Your side makes the same pointless arguments all the time of well we already have foodstamps. medicare, etc etc etc. However there is NO WAY you can tell us those programs work & there is NO WAY those programs work for 325 MILLION PEOPLE.
”
Thanks for stealing my line. Typical of people who have not an original thought running around inside of their heads.
I never argued for food stamps, public housing, or any other welfare program; I was simply refuting the claim that the government was not in that business yet.
In addition I never suggested any of those programs work, although the word "work" is completely subjective. Does the current health care system work? Sure, for people who are insured. Does public housing work? sure for the people on public housing.
The fact is that the status quo does not work. Spending twice as much money on health care as any other industrialized country in the world is hardly a recipe for success. If you can present for me an intellectually honest way to cut the cost of health insurance so that is affordable, and spare me with the tort reform alone, I'm all ears.
43
Nov 08, 2009 at 05:23 PM anonymous Says:
“ Your point is also boring us all. Your side makes the same pointless arguments all the time of well we already have foodstamps. medicare, etc etc etc. However there is NO WAY you can tell us those programs work & there is NO WAY those programs work for 325 MILLION PEOPLE.
”
Liberalism has enabled a group of people to live off from us working people under pretext of learning torah. Food stamps are used by people who live in expensive home paid by the father-in-law or father. This country ripped off by the so called "conservatives" whose only claim to conservatism is the own selfish interest and the rest of the country can go to the dogs
44
Nov 08, 2009 at 05:21 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!! ”
You fool in a public option you are a shareholder (if you are a taxpayer) just look at medicare losing money every year 60 billion to fraud oxford does not lose billion to fraud because heads would roll so me as a taxpayer & small business owner does not want to pay for every ones insurance & 60 billion in fraud I pay enough for the poor to get medicaid
45
Nov 08, 2009 at 05:20 PM Einstein Says:
“ 220 to 215 =2 votes? and we're supposed to trust the speaker of these words to give us accurate info on what will happen in the Senate? sorry Sen. Graham, sounds like wishful thinking to me. ”
if you transfer 2.5 votes out of 220=217.5 and add them to 215 you get 217.5
A TIE!
46
Nov 08, 2009 at 06:36 PM Anonymous Says:
“ 220 to 215 =2 votes? and we're supposed to trust the speaker of these words to give us accurate info on what will happen in the Senate? sorry Sen. Graham, sounds like wishful thinking to me. ”
#3 where did u graduate from?? If 2 votes go the other way its a 4 vote change
47
Nov 08, 2009 at 06:25 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Can anyone explain what's the problem with public option, I doubt that any of us are shareholders in any insurance company, so why do u have sympathy on these companies??? I rather look on my own pocket than to look into their pockets!! ”
Public option = current medicaid health care , how many doctors in BP or any other community that you live. Do you know who take today MEDICAID , have you tried to find a surgeon that takes medicaid ?
Plain and simple the rich who can afford to pay extra isurance will have the best doctors and you will have a medicaid doctor , since insurance will be so expensive ( 2x) todays cost
48
Nov 08, 2009 at 06:11 PM I thought so too Says:
“ 220 to 215 =2 votes? and we're supposed to trust the speaker of these words to give us accurate info on what will happen in the Senate? sorry Sen. Graham, sounds like wishful thinking to me. ”
I thought he was doing some funny math until I realized that he meant that there were 2 votes (actually 2.5 votes) over 1/2 majority. Put it simply, there are 435 representatives, 1/2 of that is 217 and 1/2.
49
Nov 08, 2009 at 07:23 PM shlomo Says:
The canadian sytem doesn't cover podiatrists, specialists, medication and more. It also wont cover alot of treatments deemed too expensive. U can wait months for appointments and for test results.
50
Nov 08, 2009 at 08:48 PM avi Says:
“ Thanks for stealing my line. Typical of people who have not an original thought running around inside of their heads.
I never argued for food stamps, public housing, or any other welfare program; I was simply refuting the claim that the government was not in that business yet.
In addition I never suggested any of those programs work, although the word "work" is completely subjective. Does the current health care system work? Sure, for people who are insured. Does public housing work? sure for the people on public housing.
The fact is that the status quo does not work. Spending twice as much money on health care as any other industrialized country in the world is hardly a recipe for success. If you can present for me an intellectually honest way to cut the cost of health insurance so that is affordable, and spare me with the tort reform alone, I'm all ears.
”
#42 where do I start with you
First don't bring up israels universal health care when they get 3 billion annually from the US,
Secondly how well are we doing with the free education?? Lowest grade in the universe othe than our arabic cousins,
Also did you care to check how the returs on our social security payments look like?? I bet you'll be shocked,
Finally I have an idea about cutting cost, most uninsured are young singles who earn too much to get medicaid but too little to pay for health care they don't need a lot,
So how about having "full coverage" and then cheaper "engine transmission like" coverage just like we have with autos,
So youger and people with healtier lifestyles pay less for limited coverage by avoiding smaller illneses and deseases through cautious life choises and paying for minimal care out of pocket and if they fall seriously ill then insurance kicks in so they don't burden the hospitals.
What do you think about it??
51
Nov 08, 2009 at 08:38 PM Anonymous Says:
The government has fared quite poorly at participating in the free enterprise system. In fact, whatever forms of business they have entered, they have flunked miserably. Some is their fault, and occasionally not. If they take over health care, we are in for a disaster. I shudder to think about it. How many physicians have posted the checks they received from Medicare for $0.01. It took many times more to print and send the check. Stupid. Now hospitals will be able to purchase $900 toilet seats, and the expense passed on to taxpayers. Only one comment earlier noted that tort reform would save major dollars for the system, but no one in Washington would listen. The Public option would render lifesaving treatment obsolete. Burial is cheaper. We need reform, but Obamacare ain't it.
52
Nov 08, 2009 at 09:37 PM SA Says:
Although I'm a big beleiver in free market, I find it hard to feel bad for these heartless insurance companies that call people that require expensive policies "DOGS". They play with peoples lives everyday and its time for them to be shaken a bit. I would not shed a tear for any of these insurance companies that go belly up because of this reform bill despite having capitalistic views...
53
Nov 08, 2009 at 09:56 PM Elchonon Says:
#4,
You have no "Right" in the constitution for the government to provide you health care.. I have a right to keep and bear arms which I do..and to live free and unopressed by the government and high taxes.
The revolution in 1776 was fought only partially due to taxation without representation. Excessive taxation was the root cause with no representation to counter it..
I have a constitutional right and mandate to oppose the federal government when it becomes overbearing.
# 22,
your joking right ? if our hospitals are run like the public school system then we are in deep horse manure.. they can have a "no dead patient" program like no child left behind and alter your records to make you seem healthy.
# 42,
I refer you to the book "undercover economist" government subsidized farming is a fraud "we pay you NOT to grow alfalafa" to quote osiran in catch 22
The health care system thrives because we pay mucho dinero.. otherwise there would be no money to pay for development.
If RIM Blackberry can mnfctr their phones for approx 150$ for the 8900, 9630 etc.. why then does it cost 400+$ new ? because RIM needs to make big bucks so they can stay in biz or they can shnor
54
Nov 08, 2009 at 11:44 PM Midwestern Guy Says:
“ If free health care will do all of things you are predicting it will do, how come free education -- which amounts to far greater spending -- hasn't done that?
Why is subsidized health care "socialism," and not free eduction? Is it my responsibility to pay for my neighbors child to be educated? Or s goes the conservative argument.
The reality is that there is no precedent that you can point to with which to bolster your claim. I, on the other hand, do have precedent. Every industrialized country in the world has some form of universal health care and they all seem to be to innovate just as well as the US. Norway and Singapore both have higher per capita incomes than the US, with completely "socialist" health care systems.
Israel has never had any problems with being on the cutting edge of innovation, and they have universal health care.
Until you can unequivocally prove that there is any correlation between subsidized health insurance and lack of innovation/stagnation, it would be best not to make such statements. ”
What kind of comparison is education? Education is funded locally with only minimal federal dollars. If the libs attempted a nationalized educational system with national funding and IRS enforcement (all present in the universal healthcare proposals), people would be even more upset than this attempt at universal healthcare.
The other countries you cite are irrelevant, as they don't have our Constitution. We are just about the only country that was founded on the idea of a limited government. Some people still believe in those ideals, which is yet another reason why people are fighting the healthcare takeover.
I should also note that we Yidden also benefit from a limited government. Look at another story on VIN where the English government is involving itself with questions that are fundamental to Yiddishkeit, including the very definition of who is a Yid. This could never happen here because the government gives wide berth to religious freedom. How many of the countries that you cite even value freedom and liberty at all?
55
Nov 08, 2009 at 11:33 PM You're entirely wrong Says:
“ If free health care will do all of things you are predicting it will do, how come free education -- which amounts to far greater spending -- hasn't done that?
Why is subsidized health care "socialism," and not free eduction? Is it my responsibility to pay for my neighbors child to be educated? Or s goes the conservative argument.
The reality is that there is no precedent that you can point to with which to bolster your claim. I, on the other hand, do have precedent. Every industrialized country in the world has some form of universal health care and they all seem to be to innovate just as well as the US. Norway and Singapore both have higher per capita incomes than the US, with completely "socialist" health care systems.
Israel has never had any problems with being on the cutting edge of innovation, and they have universal health care.
Until you can unequivocally prove that there is any correlation between subsidized health insurance and lack of innovation/stagnation, it would be best not to make such statements. ”
The highest US personal income tax bracket is (Average of Federal and State) is 45.8%, plus a top Corporate Tax Bracket 39% (already one of the highest in the world, used mostly to fund Medicaid and Medicare, which are not self supportive as you say), the US has no VAT. Norway as you so conveniently pointed out has a 47.8% Highest Personal that captures more of the middle class, because the bracket is set to capture more of the middle income, a Corporate of 28% flat across the boards so even small companies are paying it not just the highest bracket. They have a VAT of 25%, 14% (food and drink in shops) and 8% in (Transportation) Altogether they are collecting substantially more money from the tax base than the US is. Israel has a top personal of 47% a Corporate of 27% and a VAT of 16.5%.
These countries have stagnated medical research and fix their Pharmaceutical prices which is why they lack access to most drugs developed here...If they manage to get the drugs we are subsidizing it with our high prices so blame them for our pain.
Bottom line is no one, conservatives or liberals believes that the system in place is perfect. Cons just dont want to mess it up further.
56
Nov 09, 2009 at 03:24 AM PMO Says:
“ You fool in a public option you are a shareholder (if you are a taxpayer) just look at medicare losing money every year 60 billion to fraud oxford does not lose billion to fraud because heads would roll so me as a taxpayer & small business owner does not want to pay for every ones insurance & 60 billion in fraud I pay enough for the poor to get medicaid ”
Medicare/Medicaid loses hundreds of millions of dollars a year just in our communities. But since everyone is concerned about mesirah, nobody will do anything about it. However, they will sit on a message board like this and complain about nobody else is doing anything either. It is quite funny and hypocritical.
57
Nov 09, 2009 at 03:18 AM PMO Says:
“ What people have overlooked is a provision in the House bill that creates a commission to determine who should be treated and who should be allowed to die. This exists in Europe and many people are left to die because it has been determined by their governments that some people are not worth treating.
This is an assault on the fundamntal value of life itself. ”
Could you please let us know which provision it is that creates this? I have not been able to find it and every major media organization is debunked this Palin-supported myth. Nobody has been able to find this provision. Provding clause #'s would be helpful.
58
Nov 09, 2009 at 02:56 AM Anonymous Says:
Thanks to congressman wilson for saying the truth!.Any illegal immigrant can buy cheap insurance,by the rules in the house plan.(pelosy needed the hispanic votes)To the president and his defenders who insisted ilson was lieing i repeat YOU LIE.
59
Nov 09, 2009 at 02:40 AM Mad chareidi Says:
“ Affordable healthcare? How is 15,000 for insurance at a time that the average American is making 21,000 affordable?
The real health issue that's driving cost is the high cost of malpractice insurance for Doctors. If congress wanted reform they would encourage Tort reform, but they don't have the guts to do so. This plan is not affordable, and cannot be sustained. Medicaid had drained many states of funds.
Also, the plan penalizes me for choosing not to have insurance. Something against the fundamentals of this country. This plan will do little to improve healthcare and will drive many companies out of business.
The insurance companies are making far less than the oil, banks, or car industries and we don't hear anyone screaming reform. This country is based on free markets and the gov't not allowing companies to make money is nothing more than communism.
”
It's not that the democrats don't have the guts,it's the money lining their pockets from the trial lawers.
60
Nov 09, 2009 at 02:38 AM Anonymous Says:
“ It depends on how it is structured. If done right, it could be no worse than Medicaid. In fact, though, what it is in this bill is a way of making sure the only insurance provider is the government by mandating that private insurance cover a laundry list of stuff, and then subsidizing with tax payer dollars the competing public option which offers the same thing, pushing employers to dump their health insurance as it will be cheaper to pay the salary to cover the public option, and then once the public option is the only game in town, either by legislation or court order, abortion coverage will be mandated, and anyone over 85/90 will be told to just go an die already, we can't afford to pay for you.
Government provided food causes famine, Government provided health care will cause people to be untreated. Unless you work for the Federal Government which will never drop its separate, gold plated coverage even if it makes no economic sense.
So then there will be two tiers in America, those who are members of the party (i.e. Government workers) and those who aren't. Who happens to be elected at the head won't really matter. ”
After obama "structured" the stimulus a.k.a.pet projects bill,i will never trust him again.Unless he admits he failed in public.Anyone see the article in politico(not at all conservative),about the "saved and created" lie.
61
Nov 09, 2009 at 02:33 AM Anonymous Says:
I would like the poll which says the people support the public option by 60%!
62
Nov 09, 2009 at 08:41 AM Midwestern Guy Says:
“ Could you please let us know which provision it is that creates this? I have not been able to find it and every major media organization is debunked this Palin-supported myth. Nobody has been able to find this provision. Provding clause #'s would be helpful. ”
The "cost savings" necessary to support this plan will be realized by denying care, particularly the most expensive end-of-life care. Anyone who has experienced the "kind" hospital staff as they try to convince family members to sign a "Do Not Resuscitate" order knows that hospital staff have already been conditioned to help save costs by citing "quality of life issues." These kinds of things are sure to get worse under the government-run plan. How will doctors/staff make these decisions? By having meetings about which patients lack what they call "quality of life." This already happens today. You can call them "death panels", "utilization committees" or whatever you want, but they exist to determine who will be denied care. At a minimum, they exist to make the determination to encourage families to pull the plug. These types of panels/committees will take on a new sense of urgency as cost-savings becomes the priority. There's no citation necessary because it's going to be fundamental to the process. In some hospitals, it already is.
63
Nov 09, 2009 at 09:56 AM anonymous Says:
“ Medicare/Medicaid loses hundreds of millions of dollars a year just in our communities. But since everyone is concerned about mesirah, nobody will do anything about it. However, they will sit on a message board like this and complain about nobody else is doing anything either. It is quite funny and hypocritical. ”
Medicare losses are the result of unethical doctors charging for services never performed, hospitals which include medication and procedures never administered and the Mafia and other unsavory elements who rob the system
64
Nov 09, 2009 at 09:30 AM PMO Says:
“ The "cost savings" necessary to support this plan will be realized by denying care, particularly the most expensive end-of-life care. Anyone who has experienced the "kind" hospital staff as they try to convince family members to sign a "Do Not Resuscitate" order knows that hospital staff have already been conditioned to help save costs by citing "quality of life issues." These kinds of things are sure to get worse under the government-run plan. How will doctors/staff make these decisions? By having meetings about which patients lack what they call "quality of life." This already happens today. You can call them "death panels", "utilization committees" or whatever you want, but they exist to determine who will be denied care. At a minimum, they exist to make the determination to encourage families to pull the plug. These types of panels/committees will take on a new sense of urgency as cost-savings becomes the priority. There's no citation necessary because it's going to be fundamental to the process. In some hospitals, it already is. ”
Your premise is flawed, and therefore so are your conclusions.
The doctors do not work for the government. Our healthcare institutions remain private entities. Therefore their "cost cutting" measures should not change one bit. The only thing that this bill changes is health INSURANCE... not health care. There is a big difference.
Secondly, there are no "boards" at any hospital that make such specific decisions. ALL cases are reviewed by multiple doctors at every hospital. If nothing else, under the new insurance system hospitals will make more money keeping people alive (as more people have insurance footing the bills).
I'm sorry, but the logic is just not there.
65
Nov 09, 2009 at 10:41 AM Midwestern Guy Says:
“ Your premise is flawed, and therefore so are your conclusions.
The doctors do not work for the government. Our healthcare institutions remain private entities. Therefore their "cost cutting" measures should not change one bit. The only thing that this bill changes is health INSURANCE... not health care. There is a big difference.
Secondly, there are no "boards" at any hospital that make such specific decisions. ALL cases are reviewed by multiple doctors at every hospital. If nothing else, under the new insurance system hospitals will make more money keeping people alive (as more people have insurance footing the bills).
I'm sorry, but the logic is just not there. ”
It's impossible to argue with your "logic". You say that only "insurance" will change, but not healthcare. Let me give you a real-world example, which is the case of nursing homes. In the case of nursing homes, the government determines the level of funding for well over 90% of the patients. Do you think that "health care" is just rendered regardless of the funding level? Absolutely not! Nursing homes know how much revenue they're getting and base many decisions, including those pertaining to "health care" on the basis of the funding that they'll receive.
How can you say that "insurance" which represents funding, and "health care" are separate?? Let's say that the government plan doesn't cover multiple organ donation. If it isn't funded, it won't be done. Too bad for those who need such things. And whatever private insurance companies are left will also cut similar coverage, as the extra costs will make it that much more difficult to compete with the government plan.
Your last paragraph is a pipe dream! More money? The government will strongly encourage "cost savings". Obama has used the term many times already. Still don't get it? It means less care, not more.
66
Nov 09, 2009 at 11:53 AM PMO Says:
“ It's impossible to argue with your "logic". You say that only "insurance" will change, but not healthcare. Let me give you a real-world example, which is the case of nursing homes. In the case of nursing homes, the government determines the level of funding for well over 90% of the patients. Do you think that "health care" is just rendered regardless of the funding level? Absolutely not! Nursing homes know how much revenue they're getting and base many decisions, including those pertaining to "health care" on the basis of the funding that they'll receive.
How can you say that "insurance" which represents funding, and "health care" are separate?? Let's say that the government plan doesn't cover multiple organ donation. If it isn't funded, it won't be done. Too bad for those who need such things. And whatever private insurance companies are left will also cut similar coverage, as the extra costs will make it that much more difficult to compete with the government plan.
Your last paragraph is a pipe dream! More money? The government will strongly encourage "cost savings". Obama has used the term many times already. Still don't get it? It means less care, not more. ”
There are already plenty of private insurance plans that won't cover multiple organ donation. While I may hate the President's plan (purely from an anti-entitlement standpoint), who cares if they don't cover the multiple organ donations now? Nobody has cared before with private insurance either.
Neither you or I know what will happen. Most doctors LOVE medicare because they pay and put up very little resistance compared with many of the private companies.
For a conservative like me, there are no good answers. I want to see them get rid of every entitlement on the books. But, if I'm stuck with something, I'd rather base it on the facts today than what some may see down the "slippery slope". This is government... there is ALWAYS a slippery slope.